Startup India
Startup India campaign is based on an action plan aimed at promoting bank financing for start-
up ventures to boost entrepreneurship and encourage start ups with jobs creation
It is focused on to restrict role of States in policy domain and to get rid of "license raj" and
hindrances like in land permissions, foreign investment proposal, environmental clearances
A startup is an entity that is headquartered in India which was opened less than five years ago
and has an annual turnover less than 25 crore
The government has already launched iMADE, an app development platform aimed at producing
1,000,000 apps and PMMY, the MUDRA Bank, a new institution set up for development and
refinancing activities relating to micro units with a refinance Fund of 200 billion
Single Window Clearance even with the help of a mobile application
10,000 crore fund of funds
80% reduction in patent registration fee
Modified and more friendly Bankruptcy Code to ensure 90-day exit window
Freedom from mystifying inspections for 3 years
Freedom from Capital Gain Tax for 3 years
Freedom from tax in profits for 3 years
Eliminating red tape
Self-certification compliance
Innovation hub under Atal Innovation Mission
Starting with 5 lakh schools to target 10 lakh children for innovation programme
new schemes to provide IPR protection to start-ups and new firms
encourage entrepreneurship.
Stand India across the world as a start-up hub
Standup India
Standup India was launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 5 April 2016 to support
entrepreneurship among women and SC & ST communities
Launch[edit]
Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the Stand up India scheme on 5 April 2016 as part of
the government's efforts to support entrepreneurship among women and SC & ST communities.[1]
The scheme offers bank loans of between 10 lakh (US$15,000) and 1 crore (US$150,000) for
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and women setting up new enterprises outside of the
farm sector.[2]
Eligibility
1.SC/ST and/or Women entrepreneurs, above 18 years of age.
2.Loans under the scheme is available for only green field project. Green field signifies , in this
context, the first time venture of the beneficiary in the manufacturing or services or trading sector.
3. In-case of non-individual enterprises, 51% of the shareholding and controlling stake should be
held by either SC/ST and/or Women Entrepreneur.
4. Borrower should not be in default to any bank/financial institution.
Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System
The Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) with an operational name
of NAVIC ("sailor" or "navigator" in Sanskrit, Hindi and many other Indian languages, which also
stands for NAVigation with Indian Constellation[2]) is an autonomous regional satellite
navigation system that is being set up by India, that will be used to provide accurate real-time
positioning and timing services over India and the region extending to 1,500 kilometres (930 mi)
around India
The NAVIC system will consist of a constellation of 3 satellites in Geostationary orbit (GEO), 4
satellites in Geosynchronous orbit (GSO)
The system was developed because access to foreign government-controlled global navigation
satellite systems is not guaranteed in hostile situations, as happened to the Indian military in
1999 when it was dependent on the American Global Positioning System (GPS) during the Kargil
War
NAVIC will provide two levels of service, the standard positioning service will be open for civilian
use, and a restricted service (an encrypted one) for authorized users (including the military).
The navigation signals themselves would be transmitted in the S-band frequency (24 GHz) and
broadcast through a phased array antenna to maintain required coverage and signal strength
NAVIC signals will consist of a Standard Positioning Service and a Precision Service
Uttarakhand HC sets aside Presidents Rule
Background
Union government has imposed president rule in Uttarakhand using Artcle 356 of the
constitution but Uttarakhand High Court has quashed this order.
What is the provision of Article 356?
According to this Article if the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the
State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of
the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution
then he could impose president rule on advice from Union Cabinet i.e. Article 356,
empowers the president to dismiss a state government on the advice of the Union
cabinet.
This Article was deemed as dead letter by BR Ambedkar but it is one of the most
misused article of the constitution.
Guidelines given by the Supreme Court for using this article:
Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in S. R. Bommai case gave the following
guidelines to curb the misuse of this provision.
1. Strength of the government should be tested on the floor of the house and not
elsewhere i.e. Governor cannot decide whether a government has requisite
strength or not and it should be done through floor test only.
2. After imposing president rule the legislature should not be dissolved
immediately. Rather it should remain in suspension.
3. If malafide intention is found then the court can restore the government.
Reason given by centre for imposing President rule
1. It was claimed that the state government could not get the Appropriation Bill
passed and this led to a situation in which the government could not function in
accordance with the constitution.
But some experts believe that according to the speakers statement, the
Appropriation Bill was passed by voice vote on March 18. As per the procedure and
practice, this bill is passed by voice vote and no division (recording of vote) is held or
allowed, as such a bill is used to authorize the government to appropriate the money
from a consolidated fund that has just been voted by the assembly. Once the house
has voted the grants, the bill to authorize the appropriation of the same grants
cannot be opposed. Article 204 bars even amendments to such a bill. Given that the
Uttarakhand assembly had voted the grants, any demand for a division of vote is
against the constitution and well-established parliamentary practices. Thus, the
imposition of presidents rule on the ground that the Appropriation Bill could not be
passed is unconstitutional.
Who decides if an Appropriation Bill has been passed? It is only the speaker, and the
Constitution does not recognize any other authority to decide on this question.
Article 212 provides house proceedings immunity from being called into question
before a court of law. Even when the speaker refuses to order a division of vote
when it is demanded for other bills, it could be considered a procedural irregularity,
which the court will not look into.
This position was settled in 1952 in the State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh case.
In this case, a bill passed by the Bihar assembly was challenged inter alia on the
grounds that the speaker did not formally put a motion before the assembly to pass
the bill, and thus it was contended that the bill had not been passed. The Supreme
Court relied on the speakers endorsement of the bill to signify that it had, in fact,
been passed, going on to say that it was a procedural irregularity and Article 212
bars the court from looking into it.
This immunity has been provided to the proceedings of a legislative house because
otherwise there may be frequent challenges in the courts, and the house will be
unable to function with absolute freedom which is its privilege.
2. Bribery as grounds for imposition of presidents rule
Governor asked former chief minister to prove his majority in the assembly on March
28, after nine Congress members broke away from the party. The governor acted
perfectly in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court in the Bommai
case.
But a day before the floor test was to be held, the Union cabinet held an emergency
meeting and advised President Pranab Mukherjee to impose Central rule in the
state. But Presidents rule should have become an option only after the floor test.
The decision was based on a sting operation showing the CM offering money to
MLAs for support. This means that presidents rule was imposed on the ground that
the chief minister had attempted to bribe some legislators for their support.
But experts believe that this reason is alien to Article 356. At best it could be the
basis of a petition against the chief minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
but it certainly does not justify the imposition of presidents rule.
Reason given by court for quashing the judgement
According to the court the governors report on the situation in the state, did not
match the claims made in the Union cabinets note recommending presidents rule.
The Centre was looking with a magnifying lens for an opportunity in state
assemblies to impose presidents rule. The court also remarked that the Centre
was taking away the power of an elected government and introducing chaos.
Thus quashed the decision.
